Undead's are unplayable agains dwarfs!

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

turin wrote:At one point I did advocate an all-dwarf faction, but I've changed my mind. I think it's a bad idea. Racially pure factions, in general, are boring. This is why I tend not to play classic. Although I do think the outlaw-dwarf alliance is nonsense, they would be better off allied with viking-humans than on their own...
I think dwarves with gryphon riders can be adequately diverse.

The problem with dwarves allied with viking humans is that dwarves are already very much like viking humans, and I can't see what viking humans would have to add to them in terms of diversity -- a typical 'viking' unit I would imagine would play very much like a dwarf fighter, and could probably be straight-out replaced with a dwarf.

It'd be like making elves allied with human woodmen -- something which makes aesthetic sense, but no gameplay sense, because human woodmen don't really add anything to elves. Woses on the other hand do, because they are very different to elves.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

Vikings would be much worse in mountains, I would think, but better on water... much like the Marauders. They would be similar culturally, sure, but fightingwise they'd be better on different terrains, vikings would probably have less health and be cheaper, etc..
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
Anyar
Posts: 191
Joined: July 25th, 2005, 9:18 pm
Location: MI

Post by Anyar »

turin wrote:Vikings would be much worse in mountains, I would think, but better on water... much like the Marauders. They would be similar culturally, sure, but fightingwise they'd be better on different terrains, vikings would probably have less health and be cheaper, etc..
WHY would they be similar culturally though? Dwarves live in caves and mountains, while vikings live in coastal settlements. The only similarity between the lifestyles would be that they both live in northern areas.
Zilo
Posts: 24
Joined: September 9th, 2005, 11:39 am
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Zilo »

The thing is that by separating the dwarfs and outlaws there would be two problems, first you need to balance this two races (e.g. new units(vikings or so)) and second is that it will not solve the problem with weak undeads. I prefer upgrading ghould by adding hp and put away impact of fighers.
Ain't ain't formal....Who cares?
User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz »

Yep, Outlaw/Knalgan alliance does seem like nonsense.

Yes, they would need more units, and making hammers less common would work (if Runemaster gets added, it would be the ultimate skeleton basher btw).

No, i don't think Outlaws should get a faction. They would commonly organize in small bands and, in the worst cases, military-like brigands.

Yes, upgrading the Ghoul would make me a very happy camper.

On the "new allies" (if we want the diversity) topic... woodmen -heck, even some kind of elven runner- could work, but until more options have been passed, i think we will be stuck in brainstorming.

Mmm... badgers...
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
WildPenguin
Posts: 161
Joined: September 6th, 2005, 10:41 pm
Location: Australia

Post by WildPenguin »

I really don't think that any change is needed to either faction.

Dwarf vs. Undead might be a difficult game, but no where near impossible.
IMO Undead vs. Drakes is a far more difficult game with the massive weakness to cold of all Drakes and Saurians, however no change has been suggested here :(

To counter the Dwarves, I find Adepts most effective. Dark Adepts magical damage works brilliantly against Fighters or Thunderers in the mountains, and all Outlaws, especially Thieves. And Ulf's can be defeated using Skels.

When using Adepts, it's best to use them in groups. This prevents a 'zerker from getting "free xp." Since a group of 3 or so Adepts should be more then capable of killing a Ulf. As Ulf's cost 19 gold, and Adepts cost 16 gold, you're up 3 gold + xp :)

To have a chance of victory against the alliance it's a matter of forcing your oponent to attack what you want. Don't let fighters near the skeletons, and don't let Ulf's anywhere near the Adepts. :)
Shadowdweller
Posts: 53
Joined: August 4th, 2005, 10:16 am

Post by Shadowdweller »

[quote=Zilo], i really think that dwarf figher is really strong for 14g, he has a lot of hp and when he is on hills, you have very hard job to fight him even with expensive units.
[/quote]Indeed. Which is probably why they cost 16g rather than 14.
Zilo
Posts: 24
Joined: September 9th, 2005, 11:39 am
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Zilo »

WildPenguin wrote: IMO Undead vs. Drakes is a far more difficult game with the massive weakness to cold of all Drakes and Saurians, however no change has been suggested here :(

To counter the Dwarves, I find Adepts most effective. Dark Adepts magical damage works brilliantly against Fighters or Thunderers in the mountains, and all Outlaws, especially Thieves. And Ulf's can be defeated using Skels.
so then we need to balance drakes also, for example put saurians some cold resistance, but i dont agree with your point that dark adepts are brilliant against dwarfs. I think with the group of adepts you would not win against dwarfs. If you have some good replay when you win against dwarfs with this tactic, please submit it.

I attached two more replays.
Attachments
saves.zip
(20.97 KiB) Downloaded 137 times
Ain't ain't formal....Who cares?
telly
Posts: 260
Joined: January 12th, 2004, 5:07 am

Post by telly »

Depending on the map, adepts aren't all that good against drakes anymore. To win with magic units you normally need to have the iniative and attack first. But now that corpses don't have zone of control you can't use them to screen out enemies like you used to be able to. Without that protection the undead units are too slow and unless you are really much cleverer than your opponent the drakes can normally fly in and wipe out your adepts with melee attacks before you can use them.

As zilo says adepts don't beat dwarf fighters usually. They have cold resistance and on any sort of heavy terrain they'll almost always get the first round of attacks because of their movetype. Most players keep ulfs hanging back waiting for an opportunity, not to charge groups of enemy units by themselves. So saying they aren't a problem because you can always surround and kill them back is very niave.
Last edited by telly on September 28th, 2005, 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Doc Paterson
Drake Cartographer
Posts: 1973
Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
Location: Kazakh
Contact:

Post by Doc Paterson »

:arrow:
Last edited by Doc Paterson on September 27th, 2005, 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses.
-Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
User avatar
Dragonking
Inactive Developer
Posts: 591
Joined: November 6th, 2004, 10:45 am
Location: Poland

Post by Dragonking »

I would think about lowering fighter hammer attack by one point (without changing steelclad and lord). It shouldn't be big problem - knalgans got too thugs.

I don't like idea of changing resistance to cold: dwarwes IMHO used to it in cold caves of Knalga.

About undeads vs drakes: drakes are far more mobile than undeads, and that's it.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit
User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz »

Dragonking wrote:I would think about lowering fighter hammer attack by one point (without changing steelclad and lord). It shouldn't be big problem - knalgans got too thugs.

I don't like idea of changing resistance to cold: dwarwes IMHO used to it in cold caves of Knalga.

About undeads vs drakes: drakes are far more mobile than undeads, and that's it.
AFAIK, caves aren't cold, unless you are near a big water system or somethign like that, in fact, caves were used as refueg because they werwn't cold.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
WildPenguin
Posts: 161
Joined: September 6th, 2005, 10:41 pm
Location: Australia

Post by WildPenguin »

telly wrote:As zilo says adepts don't beat dwarf fighters usually. They have cold resistance and on any sort of heavy terrain they'll almost always get the first round of attacks because of their movetype.
They might get the first round of attacks but the will inflict little damage against an Adept on heavy terrain due to the lower CtH, meanwhile the Adept is competely unaffected by any increased defense due to the magical damage. Even during the day an Adept will inflict more damage than is likely to be done against it.

I'm not saying that you wont take losses... because you will. I'm saying that if you're opponent wants use Ulf's to make some kills, give yourself the oportunity to go kill for kill or try to use the Ulf's Berzerker to your advantage. Also, outlaws, which rely primarily upon above average defense will be at a severe disadvantage against Adepts. Limiting their recruit options. If played right, the real disadvantage lies with the Dwarves. :wink:

Also as proof of my Dark Adept/Skel tactics I have attached a replay, which shows a convincing victory over the AI (yes, I know it's only the AI. I'll submit some replays against real players soon). But if there are better tactics then Adepts/Skeletons or players than me, then winning against the Dwarves should really not be a problem 8)
Attachments
WPUndeadDwarfReplay.zip
Hope this helps...
(15.13 KiB) Downloaded 136 times
Zilo
Posts: 24
Joined: September 9th, 2005, 11:39 am
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Zilo »

I have watched your replay:)- AI played it VERY VERY VERY bad. AI bought about 7 outlaws scouts (i dont remember name:)) and not fighters and urfs. I think that you should play in MP someone, because he would not waste 100 gold for scouts:) (no offence- you played quite good)
Ain't ain't formal....Who cares?
WildPenguin
Posts: 161
Joined: September 6th, 2005, 10:41 pm
Location: Australia

Post by WildPenguin »

Zilo wrote:I have watched your replay:)- AI played it VERY VERY VERY bad. AI bought about 7 outlaws scouts (i dont remember name:)) and not fighters and urfs. I think that you should play in MP someone, because he would not waste 100 gold for scouts:)
Yes, i did notice that the AI wasted far too much gold on Outlaws, which is why I need to find a MP game where I can challenge other players to get a real indication. I played the AI a few more times, everytime it would use the same units, so the AI plays VERY VERY VERY bad against undead :?

However I thought the AI used a good amount of Ulf's: enough to cause some damage, but not enough as to be predictable. Being predictable with Ulf's generally causes a major weakness. I'll try to organise a game where Dwarves and Ulf's are used primarily against Undead and post a replay soon :wink:
Post Reply